If this is your first visit, be sure to check out our Posting Rules. You will have to register before you can post.
Anyone found posting offensive material will be banned and the police may be notified. Help us keep these message boards an enjoyable place to visit by clicking the Report Abuse button if you see offensive content.

That's pretty much what everybody says that supports a system they know is wrong. Ah, yes but no system is perfect is it? Ok, show me a perfect system? You can't? Ok. Let's keep this completely unfair and undemocratic system then! Problem solved.

That's pretty much what everybody says that supports a system they know is wrong. Ah, yes but no system is perfect is it? Ok, show me a perfect system? You can't? Ok. Let's keep this completely unfair and undemocratic system then! Problem solved.

That's pretty much what everybody says that supports a system they know is wrong. Ah, yes but no system is perfect is it? Ok, show me a perfect system? You can't? Ok. Let's keep this completely unfair and undemocratic system then! Problem solved.

Sounds familiar for some reason.

More BS Coach - Britain doesn't need 650 Constituencies - but it has them - FPtP means that It’s simple to understand and It doesn’t cost much to administer.

More BS Coach - Britain doesn't need 650 Constituencies - but it has them - FPtP means that It’s simple to understand and It doesn’t cost much to administer.

The more complex you go the worse it gets....

So simple, low cost but the least democratic option is the best? That sounds like something a lazy profiteer would say. That's pretty much the objective of privatisation in the UK. Keep it simple (hand out national systems to private corporations) low cost (invest nothing extract as much as possible) and tell the people it's good for them.

The same things come out in your posts Ron, the same views, the same distaste for what's right or the majority.

So simple, low cost but the least democratic option is the best? That sounds like something a lazy profiteer would say. That's pretty much the objective of privatisation in the UK. Keep it simple (hand out national systems to private corporations) low cost (invest nothing extract as much as possible) and tell the people it's good for them.

The same things come out in your posts Ron, the same views, the same distaste for what's right or the majority.

No wonder you fail at most things, don't understand the profit margin.... the fact that sometimes not having all the clag in life is the best way forward....

So simple, low cost but the least democratic option is the best? That sounds like something a lazy profiteer would say. That's pretty much the objective of privatisation in the UK. Keep it simple (hand out national systems to private corporations) low cost (invest nothing extract as much as possible) and tell the people it's good for them.

The same things come out in your posts Ron, the same views, the same distaste for what's right or the majority.

Its already been determined on here that one person one vote is the best way, so how is that undemocratic.... Another own goal Coach....
The problem is the delivery system

Its already been determined on here that one person one vote is the best way, so how is that undemocratic.... Another own goal Coach....
The problem is the delivery system

No you have said FPTP is best. Jared point said that in every voting system there is a vote for each person. Didn't you tell me people were always to blame never the system. Never mind I'm considering how i could create a voting system better than any in the world ever.

In regards to FPP, as posted in another thread http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ tells you what your vote actually counts for. My vote counts for 0.006 of a vote and the average UK voter has 50 times more voting power than me. It's a Labour stronghold so if I wanted to vote for anyone else, my vote wouldn't be 1 vote towards that party, it would be 0.006 of a vote.

No you have said FPTP is best. Jared point said that in every voting system there is a vote for each person. Didn't you tell me people were always to blame never the system. Never mind I'm considering how i could create a voting system better than any in the world ever.

FPtP is the best available at the moment - doesn't mean its right - like I said we have 650 areas that mean nothing

In regards to FPP, as posted in another thread http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ tells you what your vote actually counts for. My vote counts for 0.006 of a vote and the average UK voter has 50 times more voting power than me. It's a Labour stronghold so if I wanted to vote for anyone else, my vote wouldn't be 1 vote towards that party, it would be 0.006 of a vote.

Given you are voting for a candidate and not a party or PM...then it's fair enough.

But as we know, the majority vote for a party/leader and often know nothing about the candidates, unless they are high profile.

FPtP is the best available at the moment - doesn't mean its right - like I said we have 650 areas that mean nothing

What does that even mean?

Its not the best available at the moment, we have provided a number of alternatives all of which stack up better in terms of proportionality and voter turnout. Its like you are just deliberately ignoring anything that doesn't fit within your preconceived notion.

Given you are voting for a candidate and not a party or PM...then it's fair enough.

But as we know, the majority vote for a party/leader and often know nothing about the candidates, unless they are high profile.

Well as mentioned before what about having a mixed-member proportional voting system. Everyone gets two votes, 1 for local candidate and 1 for the party they want in power. First past the post just seems a terrible way of deciding what the country wants.

Well as mentioned before what about having a mixed-member proportional voting system. Everyone gets two votes, 1 for local candidate and 1 for the party they want in power. First past the post just seems a terrible way of deciding what the country wants.

Its not the best available at the moment, we have provided a number of alternatives all of which stack up better in terms of proportionality and voter turnout. Its like you are just deliberately ignoring anything that doesn't fit within your preconceived notion.

I've a feeling this might be better in another thread given that it touches upon much outside of the General Election. That being said, there are some things in there I quite like the sound of although I'll need more than 30 minutes to an hour to put a response together.

Anything from the voter's power to tell a member to do one, the complexity of the system and the speed government re-forms after an election has a bearing on how the entity is governed within each system along with being better and worst viewpoints in particular areas but no clear winner.

In-fighting is a weakness, especially if you end up with something electorally toxic at the end of it.

This is an interesting statement. I believe Labour were attacked from the inside by people instructed to go and cause trouble from within. The one thing you can be sure about Labour is that because it has a fairly liberal mandate it is an open party ready to welcome anybody.

The Conservatives are elitist and protectionist. There is no doubt power and wealth would take that liberal attitude and infiltrate an opposition party and cause trouble. When you cause in-fighting you weaken your opposition.

I would put forward Labour have been weakened by deliberate infiltration and attacks from within from outside influences. That would be a much bigger attack on democracy than anything Russia has done. It's interesting that you consider this weakness from Labour. You may be right but it appears to me their weakness is their open mindedness.

In terms of removing the tax breaks from parents to pay for free school meals for all children. Firstly, it could be argued that a means tested element should be included. However, it could be a similar situation to Hammond reversing his decision to increase national insurance for the self employed from 9% to 10% or 1% below PAYE employees. On the face of it trying to remove an imbalance to make it fair. But as the self employed don't get the same level of employee related benefits and Hammond didn't include redressing the gap in those benefits was forced to reverse his decision on NI contributions.

Public schools are also known as independent schools so independent to set their own curriculum, admissions policy and most importantly independent from receiving state funding.

So is Labour also going to consider providing state funding to the likes Eton, Harrow and Rugby? As that will need Labour to find funding for another 620,000 pupils.